Jackson v. Villasenor

Background

Douglas V. Jackson filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law. The court reviewed Jackson’s second amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Jackson alleged that on May 5, 2018, C/O Villasenor asked where he was from and disliked Jackson’s answer. Three days later, Villasenor allegedly stopped Jackson on his way to a medical appointment, made hostile comments, and told C/O Clark to search Jackson’s cell. Jackson alleged that Villasenor and C/O Luna then fabricated disciplinary reports stating that marijuana and a cell phone had been confiscated.

Jackson alleged that the reports caused several consequences, including 60 days on C-status, loss of various prison privileges and electronic devices, court appearances and transportation in shackles while criminal charges were pending, and loss of certain credits while he was on close custody status. The criminal charges were dismissed in January 2020, and a senior hearing officer found Jackson not guilty of the marijuana-related disciplinary charge after determining that Villasenor’s and Luna’s reports were falsified.

Screening and Claims

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court had to read Jackson’s allegations liberally because he was representing himself.

The court found that Jackson stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Villasenor and Luna. A cognizable claim is one sufficient to proceed past initial screening. The court understood Jackson to allege that Villasenor ordered a cell search and that Villasenor and Luna wrote false disciplinary reports because Villasenor was dissatisfied with Jackson’s statement.

The court also found cognizable due-process claims based on the allegedly false disciplinary report being placed in Jackson’s file and on the report allegedly leading to criminal charges. The court explained that false accusations alone generally do not violate the Constitution, but a false charge may support a due-process claim when it causes sufficiently serious discipline, involves a report based on no evidence, or deliberately fabricated evidence leads to criminal charges. The court stated that Jackson’s claims could proceed even though he was ultimately found not guilty of the disciplinary charge and the criminal charges were dismissed.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ruled that the second amended complaint stated cognizable § 1983 claims against C/O Villasenor and C/O Luna for retaliation and due-process violations. It ordered that those two defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.

The court set deadlines for the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, for Jackson to respond, and for any reply. It authorized discovery, required Jackson to send court filings to opposing counsel or the defendants as directed, and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal. The order was a screening and service order, not a final decision on the truth of Jackson’s allegations or on whether he would prevail.